Spare Change

Gay Marriage: A Constitutional Crisis

Posted by Bryan

First, this from the inbox:

A scene at City Hall in San Francisco


"Next."

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

""Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands.

"But we haven't had any siblings."

"That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects.

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim. Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I loveJane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

Much of the pandemonium taking place right now regarding the right of same-sex couples to marry is being decided upon the grounds of equal protection under the law. The moral arguments are what they are, but in arguing morality, self-righteous individuals on either side of an issue are rarely swayed. That's all fine and fancy, but my real concern exists in a different arena.

A long time ago, a smart feller named Locke argued in opposition to a deep thinker named Hobbes. Hobbes was of the opinion that government should be controlled by a monarch with absolute power. Locke, on the other hand, held the belief that the power of government should be limited, with its responsibilities being divided among seperate but equal branches so that one group could not have too much power or authority, and could only accomplish what it was designed to do.

Many many moons ago, a group of citizens under the absolute authority of a monarch so disagreed with its expression that they ventured out and formed a new nation. The new nation was formed under Locke's principles.

That nation is our nation, and Locke's system...of "checks and balances," if you will, has served us wonderfully for over 227 years.

Recently, though, elected leaders filling positions of various municipalities' executive branch have determined it appropriate to usurp the powers provided to the legislative branch. In doing so, they have violated the constitutionally established process of law and order. These subversive actions have been cloaked in frilly garments of political correctness, but if they be allowed to stand unopposed, they very well may establish an extremely dangerous precedent to the rule of law.

Using the hypothetical account used to introduce this topic as a corollary, what will keep the executives of the future from taking these usurptings to a more destructive level of anarchy or oppression? A leader cannot effective enact a constitutional change by violating the constitution. The ends does not justify the means. And those who are pleased by the actions today simply because the unlawfulness has directly benefitted them are well served to take a longer look and realize that a bigger issue is at stake.

The checks and balances of our civic organization are in place to protect the populace. Those who would oppose and overtly defy it should be forcibly, swiftly, and immediately removed from office by the constituency, regardless of the local popularity of their rebelliousness.

John Locke's treatises were established on the philosophical belief that government is a reflection of natural law established by God. Hobbes' discourses, by contrast, were the outgrowth of an atheistic philosophy guided by self-preservation-oriented relativistic behavior. The discussion of a marriage ammendment and the right of same-sex couples to marry is an important one for the United States to address as a democratic republic. We will never successfully undertake that endeavor if we do not first address the constitutional crisis facing our civic structures by executives and judges exercising a gross misuse of power by their dysfunctional leglislative actions.

March 17, 2004 3:41 PM